See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305355846

Towards a Cohesive Theory of Cohesion

Article · December 2013

DOI: 10.18533/ijbsr.v3i12.338

CITATIONS READS

11 1,886

2 authors, including:

Kathryn Von Treuer

Cairnmillar Institute
49 PUBLICATIONS   268 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Shift work and health outcomes View project

Integrated Care and Healthpathways View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kathryn Von Treuer on 17 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.



 
 
This is the published version:  
 
McLeod, Janet and Von Treuer, Kathryn 2013, Towards a cohesive theory of cohesion,
International journal of business and social research, vol. 3, no. 12, pp. 1‐11.


Available from Deakin Research Online: 
 
http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30059957



Reproduced with the kind permission of the copyright owner.

Copyright : 2013, Maryland Institute of Research  

Towards a Cohesive Theory of Cohesion
Janet McLeod1, Kathryn von Treuer2

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Available Online November 2013 Conventional wisdom suggests that group cohesion is strongly related
Key words: to performance. This may be based on the notion that better cohesion
Cohesion; leads to the sharing of group goals. However, empirical and meta-
Cumulative research program; analytic studies have been unable to consistently demonstrate a
Performance relationship between cohesion and performance. Partially, this
problem could be attributed to the disagreement on the precise
definition of cohesion and its components. Further, when the cohesion
construct is evaluated under Cohen’s Cumulative Research Program
(CRP), it is surprisingly found to belong to the category of early-to-
intermediate stage of theory development. Therefore, a thorough re-
examination of the cohesion construct is essential to advance our
understanding of the cohesion-productivity relationship. We propose
a qualitative approach because it will help establish the definitions,
enable us to better test our theories about cohesion and its
moderators, and provide insights into how best to enlist cohesion to
improve team performance.

Introduction

Cohesion has been defined as “group members inclination to forge social bonds, resulting in members
sticking together and remaining united” (Carron, 1982, p. 124). It has also been referred to as group
cohesion or cohesiveness. It is one of the oldest and most widely studied variables in the group dynamics
literature(Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009; Mullen & Copper, 1994), and is fundamental to the fabric of
group and social functioning. Despite cohesion being a widely studied construct, the construct appears to
be poorly developed and consequently, the reported theories, and empirical findings of cohesion research
are in disarray.

Cohesion has been considered a critical group variable(Carron & Brawley, 2000; Eys, Loughead, Bray, &
Carron, 2009; Lott & Lott, 1965) because of the reported relationship between cohesion and positive group
outcomes, such as job satisfaction, psychological well-being, and work-group performance(Beal, Cohen,
Burke, & McLendon, 2003; Carless, 2000; Mullen & Copper, 1994).Attitudes and behaviors exhibited by
cohesive teams include morale, group spirit, trust, friendship, cooperation, communication, organizational
citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, and sense of identification with the group (Andrews,
Kacmar, Blakely, & Bucklew, 2008; Carless & De Paola, 2000; Chen & Tang, 2009; Friedkin, 2004; Kidwell,
Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997).

This review examines the various definitions and theories of cohesion and then evaluates the development
of the constructs against stages of a Cumulative Research Program (CRP). Despite the perceived importance
of cohesion and the time and the number of studies dedicated investigating the concept, the theory of
cohesion continues to remain in the early stages of development. Indeed, this may explain the lack of
consistent research findings. Thus, we propose that the construct requires theoretical and empirical re-
examination to aid its explanatory power.

The Definition of Cohesion

A construct’s definition may facilitate precise communication and shared understanding of sociological
phenomena (Cohen, 1989). The literature contains diverse definitions and descriptions of cohesion, and it is

1School of Psychology, Deakin University, Australia

2Deakin University, Australia

1|P a g e
 International Journal of Business and Social Research (IJBSR), Volume -3, No.-12, December, 2013

clear that different researchers interpret it differently. Two historical and oft-cited definitions include the
one by Festinger (1950), who defines cohesion as the “ resultant of all the forces acting on members to
remain in the group” (p. 274) and the one by Gross and Martin (1952),who refer to it as “the resistance of
the group to disruptive forces” (p. 553). These two definitions highlight why such inconsistency exists as the
two definitions are do different to each other.

Contemporary researchers have offered other brief and perhaps uninformative definitions. For instance,
cohesion has been defined in the recent literature as the ‘stick-togetherness’ of the group (Guzzo & Dickson,
1996; Salisbury, Parent, & Chin, 2008); “the desire of group members to stay together as a group” (Banki,
2010, p. 364);“how individual members of a team relate and work together as a unit” (Aoyagi, Cox, &
McGuire, 2008, p. 30). Of course, although this is not an exhaustive list, these definitions typify the disparate
viewpoints concerning cohesion.

Ideally a nominal definition names and classifies a construct without adding any further meaning from
empirical findings or otherwise (B. P. Cohen, 1989; Reber & Reber, 2001), while also conveying the author’s
viewpoint about the construct and its components. However, in the case of cohesion and other small-group
phenomena (e.g., group identification), this is not always the case. This is demonstrated by Table 1, which
reviews a selection of the most recent (2008– 2011) empirical studies on cohesion across a range of
disciplines (e.g. sport, medical, organizational health and social sciences). Overall, there appears to be little
shared meaning among the definitions of cohesion, and it seems that defining cohesion explicitly poses
considerable difficulty (see Table 1). Further, it is unclear whether various researchers are referring to the
same thing. As social psychology researchers and theorists, we need to be confident that we are referring to
the same phenomenon.

Table 1: Comparison of the Rationale/Bases for Studies on Cohesion in a sample of studies

Definition Author Components of cohesion Measurement
A dynamic process which is De Backer et Task cohesion and Social Three items from the task
reflected in the tendency al., (2011) cohesion. cohesion scale and three
for a group to stick items from the social
together and to remain cohesion from the GEQ
united in the pursuit of its (Carron et al., 1985).
instrumental objectives Loughead, Group integration, The Physical Activity
and/or for the satisfaction Patterson, & Attraction to the group, Group Questionnaire
of member affective needs Carron (2008) Task cohesion, and Social (Estabrooks & Carron,
(Carron et al., 1985). cohesion. 2000).
Marcos, Task cohesion and Social An adapted version of the
Miguel, Oliva, cohesion. Multidimensional Sport
&Calvo(2010) Cohesion Instrument
(Yukelson et al., 1984).
Forces acting on the Crino and The degree to which (1) Cohesion Questionnaire
members of the group to Djokvucic activities of the group (Ogrodniczuk, Piper, &
remain in the group (2010) stimulate the participant; Joyce, 2006; Piper et al.,
(Festinger, 1950). (2) the patient is committed 1983).
to the group; (3) the group
is perceived as suitable.

How individual members Aoyagi, Cox, & Group integration, GEQ (Carron et al., 1985).
of team relate to each other McGuire, Attraction to the group,
and work together as a (2008) Task cohesion, and Social
unit. cohesion.
Shared commitment to the Hausknecht, Task cohesion and GEQ (Carron et al., 1985).
group task and a shared Trevor, & Attraction to the group.
attraction and mutual Howard
liking for one another. (2009)
The bond with the group as May et al. Task cohesion and Social GEQ (Carron et al., 1985).
a whole. (2008) cohesion.

2|P a g e
 Towards a Cohesive Theory of Cohesion
Janet McLeod/Kathryn von Treuer

Definition Author Components of cohesion Measurement

The degree to which the Shiue, Chiu, & Task and emotional Three items adapted from
group members share the Chang (2010). components. Warkentin, Sayeed, &
group goals and unite to Hightower (1997).
meet these goals.
The stick-togetherness of a Salisbury, Sense of belonging and Six-item scale; items
group. Parent, & Chin Morale. derived from scales of
(2008) cohesion (Bollen & Hoyle,
1990; Chin et al., 1999).

The assumption that definition of cohesion reflects the corresponding author’s theory of cohesion is
reasonable. Most notably, some of these definitions are aligned to a unidimensional conceptualization of
cohesion rather than the multidimensional one, again reflecting a lack of consistent understanding of
cohesion. Hence, a thorough re-examination of the evolution of the cohesion construct may assist to advance
our understanding of cohesion.

Theory of Cohesion

The multidimensional nature of cohesion has been considered by some of the earliest theorists and
researchers (Back, 1951; Festinger, 1950; Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950; N. Gross & Martin, 1952).
Festinger (1950) proposed that cohesion is composed of three factors: (1)attraction to the group
(analogous to interpersonal attraction or social cohesion), which is essentially a liking for the group or the
group members,(2)commitment to the task (analogous to task commitment or task cohesion), which is the
extent to which individual member goals are shared with or enabled by the group, and (3)group pride,
which is the extent to which group members experience positive affect from being associated with what the
group represents or the status of the group(Beal et al., 2003; Carless & De Paola, 2000; Festinger, 1950).
Others have supported Festinger’s original conceptualization, describing his three factors as either
individual components of cohesion or as a complete description of their model (e.g. Beal et al., 2003; Carless
& De Paola, 2000; Mullen & Copper, 1994).

Although theories of cohesion generally support the existence of specific components, the degree of support
varies. These components include, but are certainly not limited to, attraction to the group (analogous to
interpersonal attraction) (e.g. Back, 1951; Beal et al., 2003; Carless & De Paola, 2000; Carron, Widmeyer, &
Brawley, 1985; Dobbins & Zaccaro, 1986; Festinger, 1950; Festinger et al., 1950; Widmeyer, Bray, & Carron,
1985); group pride (e.g. Beal et al., 2003; Festinger, 1950; Festinger et al., 1950); task commitment (e.g.
Beal et al., 2003; Carless & De Paola, 2000; Festinger, 1950; Festinger et al., 1950; Mullen & Copper, 1994);
sense of belonging (e.g. Andrews et al., 2008; Bollen & Hoyle, 1990; Frank, 1957; E. Gross, 1954; Zenaida,
Fernando, & Pierre, 2003); morale (e.g. Bollen & Hoyle, 1990; Chin, Salisbury, Pearson, & Stollak, 1999); and
bonding (e.g. Salo & Siebold, 2008).

Despite these early suggestions that cohesion comprises multiple factors (e.g. Festinger, 1950; Festinger et
al., 1950; N. Gross & Martin, 1952),some researchers continued to regard cohesion as a unidimensional (one
factor)construct (e.g. Goodman, Ravlin, & Schminke, 1987; Piper, Marrache, Lacroix, Richardsen, & Jones,
1983; Seashore, 1954). For instance, Goodman, Ravlin, and Schminke (1987) considered cohesion as
commitment to the group task. Piper, Marrache, Lacroix, Richardsen, and Jones, (1983) defined cohesion as
a “basic bond or uniting force,” (p. 95) and considered commitment to the group to represent this
conception. The tendency among researchers to conceptualize cohesion as simply attraction to the group
might be because such a definition lends itself easily to operationalization and measurement (Bollen &
Hoyle, 1990; Drescher, Burlingame, & Fuhriman, 1985; Evans & Jarvis, 1980). However, a key criticism of
the unidimensional approach is that conceptualizing cohesion (a group level phenomenon) as attraction to
the group (an individual manifestation) loses the “groupness” of cohesion, thereby failing to reflect the true
nature of the construct (Mudrack, 1989; Yukelson, Weinberg, & Jackson, 1984). Researchers have noted
these shortcomings and called for the multidimensional nature of the construct to be reflected in its
nominal, conceptual, and operational definitions (Carron, 1982; Drescher et al., 1985; Mudrack, 1989;
Mullen, Driskell, & Salas, 1998; Tziner, 1982).

3|P a g e
 International Journal of Business and Social Research (IJBSR), Volume -3, No.-12, December, 2013

Despite the mainstream view arguing for its multidimensionality (e.g. Carron & Brawley, 2000; Evans &
Jarvis, 1980; Festinger, 1950; N. Gross & Martin, 1952), a number of measures treat cohesion as
unidimensional (e.g. Barrett, Piatek, Korber, & Padula, 2009; Budman, Soldz, Demby, Davis, & Merry, 1993;
Goodman et al., 1987; Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1983; Piper et al., 1983; Price & Mueller, 1986; Seashore,
1954). For instance, the Group Cohesion Scale developed by Price and Mueller (1986) is a unidimensional
six item scale that continues to be used by contemporary researchers to measure group cohesion (Barrett et
al., 2009; Klassen & Krawchuk, 2009).

Approaches to measuring cohesion include assessing individual members’ expressed desire to remain in the
group (e.g. Festinger et al., 1950; Schachter, 1951), duration of a member hug once the group has ended
(Kirshner, Dies, & Brown, 1978), and a variety of self-reported measures of social cohesion (e.g. Carron et
al., 1985; Seashore, 1954; Widmeyer et al., 1985) and task cohesion (e.g. Carless & De Paola, 2000; Carron et
al., 1985; Widmeyer et al., 1985). Indeed, as reported by Horney et al., “there are at least ten cohesion scales
currently circulating the literature…that researchers have developed on the basis of intuition or face
validity” (Hornsey, Dwyer, Oei, & Dingle, 2009, p. 272). The reliability and validity of these tests have not
been consistently reported in the literature(for review see Drescher et al., 1985; Evans & Jarvis, 1980;
Hornsey et al., 2009).

The model that is arguably the most widely applied conceptualization of cohesion in current research is the
four-factor model proposed by Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley (Carron et al., 1985; Widmeyer et al., 1985).
This model is conceptually based on the group dynamics literature and is developed through the study of
cohesion exhibited in sports teams. In this model, cohesion comprises both individual and group factors and
these factors of cohesion manifest as task and social components.

The group-individual distinction recognizes that cohesion results from both a member’s desire to remain
part of the group as a unit (group integration, GI) and from a member’s personal attraction toward being a
group member (interpersonal attraction to the group, ATG) (Carron et al., 1985; Widmeyer et al.,
1985).Hogg’s influential contribution to Social Categorization Theory includes a comprehensive discussion
of the distinction between attraction to the group and attraction to group members (insert Hogg references
here). According to Hogg’s social attraction theory, when a group is salient, group members are liked more
if they are similar to the group prototype (the defining and stereotypical group attributes). When all group
members are considered alike to the group prototype, social attraction is high. When the group is not
salient, liking for members is based on personal relationships and individual preferences. GI represents the
member’s perceptions of the group and attraction to the group, reflecting feelings of closeness, similarity,
and bonding. ATG represents attraction to group members and the personal motives of the individual to
remain part of the group (Carron & Brawley, 2000; Carron et al., 1985; Widmeyer et al., 1985). The task-
social distinction reflects the perceived task and social aspects of the group. For instance, when a group is
formed for the purpose of achieving a goal, task cohesion is likely to be high; however, once the goal has
been achieved, social cohesion is likely to be high. This model thereby conceptualizes cohesion as
comprising four factors: GI-task (GI-T), GI-social (GI-S), ATG-task (ATG-T), and ATG-social (ATG-S). These
four factors of cohesion are measured bythe Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) (Carron et al., 1985;
Widmeyer et al., 1985) , which is perhaps the most readily applied measure of cohesion in contemporary
research.

Despite the popularity of the GEQ in studying cohesion, certain reservations about its psychometric
properties have been discussed in the literature. For instance, empirical tests of the model within and
outside of the sporting context have yielded mixed results (Carless & De Paola, 2000). Further, the four
factors of cohesion could not be validated in sports teams (Schutz, Eom, Smoll, & Smith, 1994), and the GI-
ATG distinction was not supported in a large group of musicians (Dyce &Cornell, 1996). Carless and De
Paola (2000) conducted a study to validate a revised version of the GEQ for organizational settings. In this
study, four conceptual models of cohesion were tested and found to be a poor fit of the data. The models
included ATG (one-factor model), GI and ATG (two-factor model), task cohesion and social cohesion (two-
factor model), and Carron et al.’s model. However, an alternative three-factor solution, comprising task
cohesion (α = 0.74), social cohesion (α = 0.81), and attraction to the group (α = 0.63), emerged as a better
model. These factors were operationalized as ten items on the work-adapted GEQ.

However, the findings of Carless and De Paola (2000)should be interpreted with caution because
researchers have identified methodological limitations in their study(e.g. Carron & Brawley, 2000). In
particular, the sampling technique employed gave rise to a number of debates. The sample only included

4|P a g e
 Towards a Cohesive Theory of Cohesion
Janet McLeod/Kathryn von Treuer

employees from a single organization, and they varied significantly in tenure. The restricted sample may not
be representative of the wider population and therefore the findings and conclusion drawn from this study
may be exclusive to that particular organization. Furthermore, the outcome variable, i.e., performance, was
measured in the form of manager ratings of the employees. Given that the regional managers in the
organization oversaw a number of stores and employees, it is conceivable that the managers may not have
had the necessary interaction with employees to provide accurate ratings of their performance, thereby
introducing error.

In addition to potential limitations with the sampling and measurement techniques employed, the fit of
Carless and De Paola’s (2000) model and the internal consistency of their work-adapted scale is also
debatable (see Hu &Bentler (1999) criteria for an adequate model).

As seen in Table 1, this model is the most widely applied conceptualization of cohesion today. However,
despite its limitations, the Carless and De Paola study raises questions about the validity of the Carron et al.
model (Carron et al., 1985; Widmeyer et al., 1985).

In an attempt to understand an underlying factor structure of cohesion von Treuer, Fuller-Tysiewicz and
Atkinson (2010) collapsed the items of six scales reporting to measure cohesion. Exploratory factor analysis
revealed four first-order factors of team commitment, friendliness, interpersonal conflict and
communication that collectively accounted for 55.17% of the variance shared among the 75 cohesion items.
Subsequently, a single higher-order factor was extracted which accounted for over half of the co-variation
among the first order factors. This higher-order factor seems to reflect a general cohesion factor. This
finding further confirms the confusion regarding the factors of cohesion.

Thus, based on the literature, four distinct conclusions may be drawn. Firstly, various components of
cohesion have been advocated by past researchers, however, empirical and theoretic support for the
components vary. Secondly, research findings fail to identify components that are important in the context
of the cohesion-performance relationship, thereby contributing to the conceptual confusion. Thirdly, with
the exception of a few researchers (e.g., Carron et al., 1985), there is a clear lack of collaborative effort
among cohesion researchers. This is demonstrated by the varied viewpoints of cohesion communicated by
researchers (Table 1). Lastly, some components of cohesion, which have been supported by previous
research (e.g. belongingness) are not captured in the current models (or conceptualizations) of cohesion.

Recent studies demonstrate a clear preference for conceptualizing and operationalizing cohesion as task
and social cohesion. Given the lack of consistent findings on the conceptualization of cohesion, any research
approach that focuses on a subset of components to the exclusion of others may be misguided.

The available measures of cohesion neither reflect the complex nature of the construct nor possess
adequate psychometric properties. A key consequence of inconsistent measurement is the limited ability to
generalize across studies. Furthermore, without agreement on the definition, conceptualization, and
measurement of cohesion, researchers will be unable to conduct systematic research or engage in
collaborative work and build a program of robust research. In other words, without this agreement,
progress in developing a coherent theory of cohesion will be hindered. Although the work of Carron et al.
may have brought some consistency to the definition, conceptualization, and measurement of cohesion, the
inability of researchers to support their model challenges its use. However, Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley
offer a good example of how researchers, recognizing the importance of definitional and conceptual clarity,
are able to conduct systematic study of group phenomena. Once the researchers agree on the actual
definitions of cohesion, they can begin to study the construct consistently, and collaboratively build a
systematic program of research.

Cumulative Research Programs

Cohen (1989) introduced the Cumulative Research Program (CRP) to develop sociological knowledge and
to offer a means to evaluate the progress of any given theory in the social sciences. CRPs are a series of
interrelated studies, with each study being related to a stage of development based on its capacity to
identify and solve sociological problems. CRPs represent the collaborative work of researchers that together
builds on and extends current knowledge and understanding on sociological phenomena (B. P. Cohen,

5|P a g e
 International Journal of Business and Social Research (IJBSR), Volume -3, No.-12, December, 2013

1989). The value of a CRP lies in its explanatory power of the ideas, concepts, and theories that emerge
while researchers build on previous studies. A given theory is said to have more explanatory power than an
alternate theory if it includes all that is explained in the alternate theory but offers additional explanation of
a given phenomenon. Any given theory can be seen as being either in an early, intermediate, or advanced
stage of development (B. P. Cohen, 1989). CRP development usually occurs through a range of exploratory,
conceptual, or empirical activities.

In the early stage of a CRP, concepts are usually not clearly defined, ideas are vaguely formulated, and the
theory holds little explanatory power. However, one of the aims of the early stage of a CRP is to demonstrate
explanatory power, and this can be accomplished through lateral accumulation, which is the accrual of
information or data that support the theory. Although lateral accumulation can offer a greater
understanding of the theory, it does not usually solve theoretical problems or result in the development of
new theoretical definitions. Therefore, for the CRP to progress to the next stage, a more strategic approach
is needed.
For a theory to advance to the intermediate stages of the CRP, the (degree of) explanatory power offered by
the theory must be demonstrated. This is because each progression to the next stage of the CRP must ensure
greater capability to solve problems. Accordingly, intermediate stage of theory development is focused on
refining concepts using explicit definitions and applying reliability and validity studies, developing more
explicit definitions, developing more comprehensive explanation of theory concepts, and testing the
theory’s principles in other research settings (B. P. Cohen, 1989).

The advanced stage of the CRP is the final stage of theory development. The progress from the intermediate
stage to the advanced stage occurs when the theory (or theories) is defined explicitly, generates knowledge,
solves problems, and is supported by substantial empirical evidence. The development of the CRP will
continue for as long as the theory continues to generate knowledge and affords understanding.

The theory of cohesion within groups, like other social theories, can be analyzed based on the stages of
Cohen’s CRP. In the rest of this paper, we apply CRP to the theory of cohesion in light of recent research
findings.

Evaluation of the CRP for Cohesion in Light of Cohen’s Theory

Cohesion as a construct is conducive to analysis using Cohen’s (1989) CRP. On the basis of Cohen’s model,
we can conclude that the cohesion theory is in the early-to-intermediate stages of development. The early
stages of theory development are often confined to exploratory research due to an understandable lack of a
strong theoretical framework. In contrast, a theory in the advanced stage may be studied using descriptive
or exploratory techniques that allow for the examination of how a construct operates and the basis of its
operation. Applying descriptive or explanatory research methods to a theory in the early-to-intermediate
stage of development is expected to generate equivocal results (B. P. Cohen, 1989). Sophisticated
techniques, such as multiple regression and meta-analyses, have been applied in cohesion research and
have evidently yielded inconsistent findings (e.g. Beal et al., 2003; Carless & De Paola, 2000; Mullen &
Copper, 1994).

The cohesion literature is characterized by an idiosyncratic approach. While there may be normal progress,
the definitional, conceptual, and operational difficulties may have impeded the evolution of cohesion as a
construct. There is minimal evidence of the application of systematic ideas, concepts, and knowledge claims,
and the obtained findings are inconsistent and rarely replicable. Therefore, the task of integrating the work
of independent researchers into a program of research is difficult. A CRP rarely remains in the exploratory
stage; it requires cumulative strategies for progression to more advanced stages of development.
Considerable gains in conceptual clarity, in addition to systematic use of definition and measurement, are
needed to progress to more advanced stages. Hence, research should be directed toward achieving shared
conceptual understanding.

6|P a g e
 Towards a Cohesive Theory of Cohesion
Janet McLeod/Kathryn von Treuer

The Need for Qualitative Research

There is a compelling motive to re-examine cohesion using qualitative analysis strategies. Qualitative
studies can help to determine the qualities of a construct. Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley used a qualitative
approach to study cohesion in sports teams and generate items for the GEQ (Carron et al., 1985; Widmeyer
et al., 1985). However, the authors derived the components of cohesion from theory a priori. An exploratory
approach may have been more useful for deriving the components of cohesion, particularly in light of the
contradictory literature. Among many qualitative techniques, an approach that has proven useful to
investigate the knowledge and conceptions of individuals about organizational constructs is the repertory
grid technique (RGT) (Bell, 2006; Fransella, Bell, & Bannister, 2004).

The RGT, also referred to as repertory grid analysis, is based on Kelly’s (1955/1991) personal construct
theory. This theory argues that as we try to make sense of our world, we create a theoretical framework that
becomes our personal construct system (Fransella et al., 2004). We rely on this framework to make
decisions, understand our environment, and anticipate events. According to Kelly, we are all ‘scientists’ who
create expectations (hypotheses) from our personal construing (theories) of our experiences and our
environment. We test these expectations and modify our theoretical framework based on what we observe,
and the cycle continues. Fransella, Bell, and Bannister (2004) describe the RGT as a method designed to
explore personal construct systems that allow the researchers to view the world from another person’s
eyes. It is a technique used to explore personal constructs using the terms and categories of the person who
has construed them. Therefore, the RGT aims to identify the personally meaningful distinctions with which
the world is constructed. Constructs and elements are central to the RGT. Personal constructs are “bipolar
dimensions which each person has created and formed into a system through which they interpret their
experiences of the world” (Fransella et al., 2004, p. 16). For instance, in the process of construing a group as
attractive, a person also construes what is unattractive in a group. Elements are the entities that identify the
area of construing; they are the aspects that are abstracted from the constructs (Kelly, 1955/1991).

The RGT has been used to understand constructs in organizational settings, including management,
business practice, and management development (see Fransella et al., 2004; Stewart & Stewart, 1981).It
may be used to understand a group member’s personal construct of cohesion. While the RGT will not
provide the total picture in terms of defining the components of cohesion, it has the potential to provide an
appropriate starting point.

Summary and Conclusions

Despite extensive research spanning several decades, there is a lack of consistency in the literature
regarding almost every aspect of cohesion research. This includes its definition, conceptualization, and
measurement. Implementations of complex conceptual models and complicated statistical tests (e.g., meta-
analyses) may be considered premature given the lack of clarity regarding the most fundamental features of
cohesion. The construct of cohesion was evaluated in this paper as being in the early stages of a CRP.
Research could justifiably be directed toward reconciling the literature and formulating an accepted
definition, a conceptual model, and reliable measures of cohesion. A qualitative inquiry of cohesion may be
useful to define the components of the construct. RGT presents a flexible approach for the study of social
phenomena and has been successful in extracting the meaning of a construct. These are favorable
characteristics for the investigation of cohesion and its components. An explicit conceptual model will
introduce consistency to the confused literature. It may also be a step toward researching the construct
systematically and building a program of research to further develop the theory of cohesion.

References

Andrews MC, Kacmar KM, Blakely GL, Bucklew NS, 2008. Group cohesion as an enhancement to the Justice-
Affective commitment relationship. Group Organization Management, 33: 736-755.

7|P a g e
 International Journal of Business and Social Research (IJBSR), Volume -3, No.-12, December, 2013

Aoyagi MW, Cox RH, McGuire RT, 2008. Organizational citizenship behavior in sport: Relationships with
leadership, team cohesion, and athlete satisfaction. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20: 25-41.

Back KW, 1951. Influence through social communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46: 9 -
23.

Banki S, 2010. Is a good deed constructive regardless of intent? Organization citizenship behavior, motive,
and group outcomes. Small Group Research, 41: 354-375.

Barrett A, Piatek C, Korber S, Padula C. 2009. Lessons learned from a lateral violence and team-building
intervention. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 33: 342-351.

Beal DJ, Cohen RR, Burke MJ, McLendon CL. 2003. Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic
clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 989 - 1004.

Bell RC, 2006. A note on the correlation of elements in Repertory Grids: How to, and why. Journal of
Constructivist Psychology, 19: 273 - 279.

Bollen KA, Hoyle RH, 1990. Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social Forces, 69:
479 - 504.

Budman SH, Soldz S, Demby A, Davis M, Merry J, 1993. What is cohesiveness?: An empirical examination.
Small Group Research, 24: 199-216.

Carless SA, 2000. Reply to Carron and Brawley. Small Group Research, 31: 107 - 118.

Carless SA, De Paola C, 2000. The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31: 71 -
88.

Carron AV, 1982. Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 4: 123 - 138.

Carron AV, Brawley LR, 2000. Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31: 89
- 106.

Carron AV, Widmeyer WN, Brawley LR, 1985. The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport
teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7: 244 - 266.

Casey-Campbell M, Martens ML, 2009. Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion-
performance literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11: 223-246.

Chen C-HV, Tang Y-Y, 2009. Interdependence and organizational citizenship behaviour: Exploring the
mediating effect of group cohesion in multilevel analysis. The Journal of Psychology, 143: 625-640.

Chin WW, Salisbury WD, Pearson AW, Stollak MJ, 1999. Perceived cohesion in small groups: Adopting and
testing the perceived cohesion scale in a small group setting. Small Group Research, 30: 751-766.

Cohen BP, 1989. Developing Sociological Knowledge: Theory and method (2 ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall inc.

Cohen S, Bailey DE, 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the
executive suite. Journal of Management, 23: 239-290.

Crino N, Djokvucic I, 2010. Cohesion to the group and its association with attendance and early treatment
response in an adult day-hospital program for eating disorders: A preliminary clinical
investigation. Clinical Psychologist, 14: 54-61.

8|P a g e
 Towards a Cohesive Theory of Cohesion
Janet McLeod/Kathryn von Treuer

De Backer M, Boen F, Ceux T, De Cuyper B, Høigaard R, Callens F, et al., 2011. Do perceived justice and need
support of the coach predict team identification and cohesion? Testing their relative importance
among top volleyball and handball players in Belgium and Norway. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 12: 192-201.

Dobbins GH, Zaccaro SJ, 1986. The effects of group cohesion and leader behavior on subordinate
satisfaction. Group and Organization Studies, 11: 203-219.

Drescher S, Burlingame G, Fuhriman A, 1985. Cohesion: An odyssey in empirical understanding. Small Group
Behaviour, 16: 3 - 30.

Estabrooks PA, Carron AV, 2000. The physical activity group environment questionnaire: An instrument for
the assessment of cohesion in exercise classes. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4:
230-243.

EvansNJ, Jarvis PA, 1980. Group cohesion: A review and reevaluation. Small Group Behaviour, 11: 359 - 370.

Eys MA, Loughead T, Bray SR, CarronAV, 2009. Development of a Cohesion Questionnaire for Youth: The
Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31: 390-408.

Festinger L, 1950. Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57: 271 - 282.

Festinger L, Schachter S, Back K, 1950. Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in
housing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Frank JD, 1957. Some determinants, manifestations and effects of cohesiveness in therapy groups.
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 7: 53-63.

Fransella F, Bell RC, Bannister D, 2004. A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique (2nd ed.). West Sussex: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Friedkin NE, 2004. Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30: 409-425.

Goodman PS, Ravlin E, Schminke M, 1987. Understanding groups in organizations. Research in

organizational behaviour, 9: 121-173.

Gross E, 1954. Primary functions of the small group. American Journal of Sociology, 60: 24-29.

Gross N, Martin WE, 1952. On group cohesiveness. The American Journal of Sociology, 57: 546-564.

Guzzo RA, DicksonMW, 1996. Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness.
Annual Review of Psychology, 47: 307-338.

Harrison DA, Mohammed S, McGrath JE, Florey AT, Vanderstoep S, 2003. Time matters in task performance:
Effects of member familiarity, entertainment, and task discontinuity on speed and quality.
Personnel Psychology, 56: 633-669.

Hausknecht JP, Trevor CO, Howard MJ, 2009. Unit-level volutary turnover rates and customer service
quality: Implications of Group cohesiveness, newcomer concentration and size. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94: 1068-1075.

Hornsey MJ, Dwyer L, Oei TPS, Dingle GA, 2009. Group processes and outcomes in group psychotherapy: Is it
time to let go of 'cohesiveness'? International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 59: 267-278.

Hu L-T, Bentler PM, 1999. Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6: 1-55.

9|P a g e
 International Journal of Business and Social Research (IJBSR), Volume -3, No.-12, December, 2013

Kelly GA, 1955/1991. The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton (Reprinted by Routledge,
London).

Kidwell RE, Mossholder KW, Bennett N, 1997. Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behaviour: A
multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of Management, 23: 775-779.

Kirshner BJ, Dies RR, Brown RA, 1978. Effects of experimental manipulation of self-disclosure cohesiveness.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46: 1171-1177.

Klassen RM, KrawchukLL, 2009. Collective motivation beliefs of early adolescents working in small groups.
Journal of School Psychology, 47: 101-120.

Klein HJ, Mulvey PW, 1995. Two investigations of the relationships among group goals, goal commitment,
cohesion, and performance. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 61: 44-53.

Lott AJ, Lott BE, 1965. Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with
antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64: 259-309.

Loughead TM, Patterson MM, Carron AV, 2008. The impact of fitness leader behavior and cohesion on an
exerciser's affective state. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6: 53-68.

Marcos FML, Miguel PAS, Oliva DS, Calvo TG, 2010. Interactive effects of team cohesion on perceived efficacy
in semi-professional sport. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 9: 320-325.

May AM, Duivenvoorden HJ, Korstjens I, van Weert E, Hoekstra-Weebers JEHM, van den Borne B. et al.,
2008. The effect of group cohesion on rehabilitation outcome in cancer survivors. Psycho-
Oncology, 17: 917-925.

Mudrack PE, 1989. Defining group cohesiveness: A legacy of confusion? Small Group Behaviour, 20: 37 - 49.

Mullen B, Copper C, 1994. The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration.
Psychological Bulletin, 115: 210 - 227.

Mullen B, Driskell JE, Salas E, 1998. Meta-analysis and the study of group dynamics. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 2: 213- 229.

Ogrodniczuk JS, Piper WE, Joyce AS, 2006. Treatment compliance among patients with personality disorders
receiving group psychotherapy: What are the roles of interpersonal distress and cohesion.
Psychiatry, 69: 249-261.

Olson DH, Russell CS, Sprenkle DH, 1983. Circumplex model of marital and family systems: IV. Theoretical
update. Family Process, 22: 69-83.

Piper WE, Marrache M, Lacroix R, Richardsen AM, Jones BD, 1983. Cohesion as a basic bond in groups.
Human Relations, 36: 93-108.

Price JL, Mueller CB, 1986. Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

Reber AS, Reber E, 2001. The penguin dictionary of psychology (3rd ed.). London: Pengin Books.

Salisbury W, Parent M, Chin W, 2008. Robbing Peter to pay Paul: The differential effect of GSS
restrictiveness on process satisfaction and group cohesion. Group Decision & Negotiation, 17: 303-
320.

Salo M, Siebold GL, 2008. Variables impacting peer group cohesion in the Finnish conscript. Journal of
Political & Military Sociology, 36: 1-18.

Schachter S, 1951. Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46:
190-207.

10 | P a g e
 Towards a Cohesive Theory of Cohesion
Janet McLeod/Kathryn von Treuer

Schutz RW, Eom HJ, Smoll FL, Smith RE, 1994. Examination of the factorial validity of the Group
Environment Questionnaire. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65: 226-236.

Seashore SE, 1954. Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social
Research, Universtiy of Michigan.

Shiue YC, Chiu CM, Chang CC, 2010. Exploring and mitigating social loafing in online communities.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26: 768-777.

Stewart V, Stewart A, 1981. Business applications of the repertory grid. London: McGraw-Hill.

Tziner A, 1982. Differentiating effects of group cohesiveness types: A clarifying overview. Social Behaviour
and Personality, 10: 227 - 239.

Van Maanen J, 1979. Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: A preface. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 24: 520-526.

von Treuer K, Fuller-Tyzkiewicz M, Atkinson B, 2010. A factor-analytic study exploring the factors of co-
worker cohesion. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Organisational Psychology, 3: 42-53.

Warkentin ME, Sayeed L, Hightower R. 1997. Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study
of a web-based conference system. Decision Sciences, 28: 975-996.

Widmeyer WN, BraySR, Carron AV, 1985. The measurement of cohesion in work teams: The group
environment questionnaire. London, Ontario: Sports Dynamics.

Yukelson D, Weinberg R, Jackson A, 1984. A mutidimensional group cohesion instrument for intercollegiate
basketball teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6: 103-177.

Zenaida RR, Fernando R, Pierre T, 2003. Youth integration and social capital: An analysis of the Canadian
general social surveys on time use. Youth & Society, 35: 158-182.

11 | P a g e

View publication stats